- From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:17:59 +0000
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Seth, I think that not only does RDF not have any concept of consistency, but also that it has no concept of truth or falsehood. Therefore, I don'e think we can ever get a ruling on what triples mean, just that they exist (or not) in some model. The relationship between this model and any perceived reality is a matter for interpretation. #g -- At 07:38 AM 11/20/00 -0800, Seth Russell wrote: [...] >Now you might call me silly .. cause everything i would assert of ~Seth~ >would have >the same semantics as what i assert of Sub1. But does it? What if you >tell your >system: > >[You] --kill-->[~Seth~] > >Woops! ... don't read that into your system! > >I think we need to get a ruling on what triples themselves mean according >to the M&S >bible before we can tackle what their reifications mean. > >Seth Russell ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:46:08 UTC